DOCSLIB.ORG

Healy on Gerwarth, 'Empires at War, 1911-1923'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Healy on Gerwarth, 'Empires at War, 1911-1923' H-Diplo Healy on Gerwarth, 'Empires at War, 1911-1923' Review published on Saturday, February 14, 2015 Robert Gerwarth, Erez Manela, eds. Empires at War, 1911-1923. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Illustrations, maps. 256 pp. $65.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-19-870251-1. Reviewed by Maureen Healy (Lewis and Clark College)Published on H-Diplo (February, 2015) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach Imperial encounters on a personal level happened during World War I and were written down long before historians of the war (Marxists excluded) began to employ “empire” as a category of analysis for understanding it. In his influential war memoir, Storm of Steel (1920), Ernst Jünger recalled such a moment of imperial contact on the western front. He and his men heard “strange jabbering” coming from the woods and discovered wounded enemy soldiers from whom “exotic calls and cries for help” could be heard. To Jünger’s interrogation “Quelle nation?” the enemy replied “Pauvre Rajput!” The German realized he had been fighting against a regiment of Indians “who had travelled thousands of miles across the sea, only to give themselves a bloody nose on this god-forsaken piece of earth against the Hanoverian Rifles.” A linguistic volley ensued. To ingratiate themselves with their captors, the Indians called out: “Anglais pas bon!” Jünger mused, “Why these people spoke French I couldn’t quite understand. The whole scene—the mixture of the prisoners’ laments and our jubilation—had something primordial about it. This wasn’t war; it was ancient history.”[1] What brought these two men, Jünger and the Indian, face to face in the mud? The volume under review will answer: empire. But not empire in a “realist” understanding as a quasi-human agent that thinks, acts, and craves. Rather, empire in this volume is a depersonalized, disembodied system that exists for the “hierarchical management of difference” (p. 255). The uniformly insightful essays use this definition as a departure point for a new global history of World War I. The editors, Robert Gerwarth and Erez Manela, admirably set out two clear aims, evident in the book’s title: they want to expand the study of World War I both spatially, moving beyond Europe to consider the global ramifications of empire, and temporally, stretching the war’s time frame from 1911 to 1923. Why these dates? The Italian attack on Ottoman territories in North Africa in 1911 is taken as a starting point to a cycle of armed imperial conflict. Among other events, the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne and the end of the Irish Civil War suggest 1923 as a suitable pause (though by no means end) to this cycle of imperial violence. One need not quibble with dates; of course other events before and after these might stand in equally well as new bookends. But the volume is persuasive in insisting that World War I was not a “European” war and that it lasted longer than 4.5 years. The volume works on two distinct levels. First, it provides a theoretical framework for thinking about empire, and second, it offers twelve “case studies” in which the definitions and contours of “empire” are applied. The nation-state is dislodged as the unit of analysis as the Great War comes into focus as “a war of empires, fought primarily by empires and for the survival or expansion of empire” (p. 15). Gerwarth and Manela present Charles Maier’s definition of “empire” as an anchor. Empires, Maier wrote in 2006, are supranational entities characterized “by size, by ethnic hierarchization, and by a regime that centralizes power but enlists diverse social and/or ethnic elites in its management” (p. Citation: H-Net Reviews. Healy on Gerwarth, 'Empires at War, 1911-1923'. H-Diplo. 02-17-2015. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/reviews/61325/healy-gerwarth-empires-war-1911-1923 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-Diplo 3).[2] Many authors in this collection return to this definition explicitly, lending theoretical coherence to the volume as a whole. The case studies are presented by contributors who are already recognized as leading scholars in the field on “their” particular empires. The table of contents reads as a Who’s Who of imperial history of the early twentieth century. Sensibly, the volume begins with Mustafa Aksakal’s consideration of the Ottoman case. The aforementioned Italian attack on Ottoman North Africa and the Balkan Wars of 1912-13 revealed the empire’s vulnerabilities. Ottomanism, “the movement emphasizing coexistence of the Ottoman peoples of different religious and ethnic backgrounds within the imperial framework,” did not hold as an organizing principle during World War I (p. 22). Armenians, Kurds, Jews, Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, and Orthodox Christians were all suspected at various points of harboring Entente loyalties. These suspect communities, constituting the majority of the empire’s population, were placed under strict surveillance. Treatment of the Armenian population is well known; perhaps less well known are the deportations and public hangings of Arab leaders that began in 1915 in Syria and Mount Lebanon. Aksakal notes that further research is needed on whether the state used food as a weapon against the people of this region, but concludes in any case that wartime famine and the state’s own policies “enfeebled Ottoman legitimacy in the Arab lands” (p. 29). The Ottoman case most closely resembles the Habsburg and Russian empires that similarly proved unable to contain or manage the ethnic and religious pluralities within. All three struggled with what Leonard V. Smith, in a later chapter, calls empire’s “hierarchical management of difference” (p. 255). Joshua Sanborn’s authoritative chapter on Russia handles both civilian and military aspects of the war. He notes that the war on the eastern front was fought in “colonized spaces” of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, and Ukraine. Thus, the Russian army was “an army of occupation even when it was fighting on its own side of the 1914 border” (p. 94). Self-occupying its own territory, the Russian General Headquarters took over management of civilian affairs, placed huge swaths of territory under martial law, and proved far less capable of governing than the civilian administrators they had replaced. Sanborn highlights the mass migration of refugees all over the Russian Empire; this demographic upheaval proved to be a “nationalizing experience” for many of the displaced communities. A labor shortage prompted the tsar in 1916 to draft ethnic minorities who had been exempted from military conscription—men from Central Asia—into work brigades. Protest riots ensued, rail lines were attacked from within, and an “openly anti-colonial civil war was underway” (p. 100). Sanborn offers something useful that historians sometimes forget: dates, an addition that will be appreciated by the nonspecialist. He writes, “If we were to pinpoint a moment when imperial rule moved from a crisis situation into a revolutionary situation, it would be here, in the summer of 1916 in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan” (p. 99). In most twentieth-century historiography on Russia, World War I is overshadowed by the Bolshevik Revolution. It is refreshing to read this history of the empire at war. Next door, Germany strove to maintain and develop itself as an empire in three ways. Heather Jones offers a very strong, smart essay that synthesizes a large, diverse body of scholarship on the imperial project of the Kaiserreich. Although the term “Reich” translates as empire, not a few historians have struggled to articulate just what it means to call Germany an empire after 1871. One might characterize Jones’s essay as an explication of the “Reich-ness” of this Reich. She proposes three levels of imperial activity: internal, continental, and global. Concerning Alsace-Lorraine and the ethnically Polish areas in the East, she finds a discourse on “colonial spaces to be conquered within Citation: H-Net Reviews. Healy on Gerwarth, 'Empires at War, 1911-1923'. H-Diplo. 02-17-2015. https://networks.h-net.org/node/28443/reviews/61325/healy-gerwarth-empires-war-1911-1923 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 H-Diplo the frontiers of the state” (p. 54). Second, Germany sought to expand into a land-based continental empire by occupying and eventually colonizing (as “Ober-Ost,” for example) precisely the same territory that in Sanborn’s essay the Russians unsuccessfully “self-occupied.” Third, of course, Germany hoped to build on its small collection of overseas territories. That it lost several of these immediately in 1914 (Togo and Qingdao), and the others by 1916 (with the exception of East Africa), reveals the tenuousness of German status as an overseas colonial power. But here levels two and three of the imperial framework converge: as colonial ambitions died overseas, they ramped up in eastern Europe. Eventually Lebensraum would become the “cumulative heir” to what “had once been envisaged for the three components” of German wartime imperialism (p. 72). Although vastly different in makeup, the French and Austro-Hungarian empires (the latter necessarily referred to as a monarchy) did share one feature: each saw in war an opportunity to standardize what had been perceived as haphazard or uneven rule. Peter Haslinger notes that prior to 1914, Francis Joseph I had enjoyed “integrative flexibility” in managing his domains. His state rested on the “complex constitutional arrangements and discretely encouraged constitutional experiments to balance competing national movements.” The war subsequently “fostered initiatives to substitute the complex political fabric” of the dual monarchy with “a clear structure of quasi-national states” predominated by Germans and Hungarians (p. 80). In other words, some saw the war as an opportunity to standardize, streamline, and make less particularistic the Habsburg political landscape.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • German Eastern Policy, 1917–1918 Joachim Tauber German Eastern Policy in the Period Between the Withdrawal of Russia From
    LITHUANIAN HISTORICAL STUDIES 13 2008 ISSN 1392-2343 PP. 67–74 GERMAN EASTERN POLICY, 1917–1918 Joachim Tauber ABSTRACT This paper analyzes German eastern policy in the years 1917 and 1918. It shows the German concept for the future of Poland and Lithuania that only took shape after German armies had occupied these countries. The Polish question remained the main problem for the German leadership not being able to decide how to cope with Polish national aspirations without ceding part of territory of the German Empire. The collapse of Russia and the two revolutions in 1917 still widened the German aspiration in the East culminating in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that clearly revealed German ambitions. German eastern policy in the period between the withdrawal of Russia from the war in the autumn of 1917 and the collapse of the German Empire in November 1918 was the ultimate culmination of a process which began in the summer of 1914. Therefore, I begin this brief presentation with a discussion of the events of 1914 since the underlying visions and plans of the German leadership remained more or less the same throughout the war: only the actual possibi- lities of their implementation, radicalisation of plans and political rhetoric altered. At the time when public discussions about the war aims of Germany 1 were not possible until the very end of 1916, due to censorship restrictions, heated arguments in the leadership of the empire began already at the end of the summer of 1914 and the so-called ‘September Programme’ of Bethmann Hollweg, the impe- 1 The war aims of Germany were an object of a number of discussions and publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the Belarusian National Movement in The
    EVOLUTION OF THE BELARUSIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT IN THE PAGES OF PERIODICALS (1914-1917) By Aliaksandr Bystryk Submitted to Central European University Nationalism Studies Program In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Advisor: Professor Maria Kovacs Secondary advisor: Professor Alexei Miller CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2013 Abstract Belarusian national movement is usually characterised by its relative weakness delayed emergence and development. Being the weakest movement in the region, before the WWI, the activists of this movement mostly engaged in cultural and educational activities. However at the end of First World War Belarusian national elite actively engaged in political struggles happening in the territories of Western frontier of the Russian empire. Thus the aim of the thesis is to explain how the events and processes caused by WWI influenced the national movement. In order to accomplish this goal this thesis provides discourse and content analysis of three editions published by the Belarusian national activists: Nasha Niva (Our Field), Biełarus (The Belarusian) and Homan (The Clamour). The main findings of this paper suggest that the anticipation of dramatic social and political changes brought by the war urged national elite to foster national mobilisation through development of various organisations and structures directed to improve social cohesion within Belarusian population. Another important effect of the war was that a part of Belarusian national elite formulated certain ideas and narratives influenced by conditions of Ober-Ost which later became an integral part of Belarusian national ideology. CEU eTD Collection i Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Between krajowość and West-Russianism: The Development of the Belarusian National Movement Prior to WWI .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Experience of the German Soldier on the Eastern Front
    AUTONOMY IN THE GREAT WAR: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE GERMAN SOLDIER ON THE EASTERN FRONT A THESIS IN History Presented to the Faculty of the University Of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of The requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS By Kevin Patrick Baker B.A. University of Kansas, 2007 Kansas City, Missouri 2012 ©2012 KEVIN PATRICK BAKER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED AUTONOMY IN THE GREAT WAR: THE EXPERIENCE OF THE GERMAN SOLDIER ON THE EASTERN FRONT Kevin Patrick Baker, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2012 ABSTRACT From 1914 to 1919, the German military established an occupation zone in the territory of present day Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia. Cultural historians have generally focused on the role of German soldiers as psychological and physical victims trapped in total war that was out of their control. Military historians have maintained that these ordinary German soldiers acted not as victims but as perpetrators causing atrocities in the occupied lands of the Eastern Front. This paper seeks to build on the existing scholarship on the soldier’s experience during the Great War by moving beyond this dichotomy of victim vs. perpetrator in order to describe the everyday existence of soldiers. Through the lens of individual selfhood, this approach will explore the gray areas that saturated the experience of war. In order to gain a better understanding of how ordinary soldiers appropriated individual autonomy in total war, this master’s thesis plans to use an everyday-life approach by looking at individual soldiers’ behaviors underneath the canopy of military hegemony.
    [Show full text]
  • Richter Revised
    University of Birmingham 'A mass which you could form into whatever you wanted' Richter, Klaus License: None: All rights reserved Document Version Peer reviewed version Citation for published version (Harvard): Richter, K 2017, 'A mass which you could form into whatever you wanted': Refugees and state building in Lithuania and Courland, 1914–21. in Europe on the move: Refugees in the era of the Great War. Cultural History of Modern War. Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal Publisher Rights Statement: Checked for eligibility: 03/05/2019 General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. •Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. •Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. •User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of ‘fair dealing’ under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) •Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
    [Show full text]
  • Soldiers, Rabbis, and the Ostjuden Under German Occupation: 1915-1918
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2010 Shattered Communities: Soldiers, Rabbis, and the Ostjuden under German Occupation: 1915-1918 Tracey Hayes Norrell [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, European History Commons, History of Religion Commons, Military History Commons, and the Political History Commons Recommended Citation Norrell, Tracey Hayes, "Shattered Communities: Soldiers, Rabbis, and the Ostjuden under German Occupation: 1915-1918. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2010. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/834 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Tracey Hayes Norrell entitled "Shattered Communities: Soldiers, Rabbis, and the Ostjuden under German Occupation: 1915-1918." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in History. Vejas G. Liulevicius, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend
    [Show full text]
  • Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius
    Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius Director, Center for the Study of War and Society Lindsay Young Professor Professor, Department of History 915 Volunteer Boulevard 6th Floor, Dunford Hall University of Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-4065 (865) 974-7320 e-mail: [email protected] http://web.utk.edu/~history/faculty/f-liulevicius.htm EDUCATION University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Ph.D., Modern European History, 1994 Fields: Modern Germany; Russia and Eastern Europe; Cultural History Dissertation: "War Land: Peoples, Lands, and National Identity on the Eastern Front in World War I." ACTR Summer Russian Language Program in Moscow and Leningrad, USSR, 1989 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: M.A., Modern European History, 1989 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL: B.A. with General Honors in the College; Special Honors in History, 1988 Senior Thesis: "Karl Follen: The Self-Invented Man." (awarded Emile Karafiol Prize) Director: Dr. Michael Geyer PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Director, Center for the Study of War and Society, from 2008. Full Professor, Dept. of History, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, from 2010. Associate Professor, Dept. of History, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 2001-10. Assistant Professor, Dept. of History, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,1995-2001. Visiting Scholar, Postdoctoral Research Fellowship, Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University, 1994-1995. Teaching Assistant, University of Pennsylvania, 1990-1991. FOREIGN LANGUAGES German (fluent), Russian (reading), Danish (reading), Lithuanian (fluent). Liulevicius, 2 PUBLICATIONS Books The German Myth of the East: 1800 to the Present (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Kriegsland im Osten.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany's “Neuland” in the Baltic? Efforts to Colonize and Germanize
    Ron Hellfritzsch Universität Greifswald Germany’s “Neuland” in the Baltic? Efforts to Colonize and Germanize Courland. 1914–1919 Since the well-known works of Aba Stražas and Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius, the German “Ober Ost” military administration in the Baltic during the First World War is often characterized as a kind of “colonial regime”. Liulevicius especially tried to picture “Ober Ost” as a link between the First World and in some parts even the overseas colonial activities of the German Empire on one side and the Nazi aims to conquer “space” in Eastern Europe. The main thesis of Liulevicius is that the experience of German soldiers here in the occupied Baltic led to a fundamental change of how the Germans viewed Eastern Europe in general. Furthermore, Liulevicus points out that “Ober Ost” didn’t have any elaborated concepts as to how to rule the occupied territory and what its future should be, thus the leaders of the German military administration had to improvise and finally developed their own “military utopia”. In current research Liulevicius’ theses have gained support, but a lot of criticism as well. For example, a recently published dissertation shows that a German “colonial view toward the East” had already been established in the 19th century. A different study about space in Germany history regards the occupation policy of “Ober Ost” as a transfer of colonial thinking, which had been originally developed for overseas territories, to Europe. The dissertation project presented here follows an approach which connects the arguments of both sides. An analysis of documents of German civilian and military planners engaged in Easter European affairs during the First World War reveals that the Baltic was imagined as the ideal “space” for future German colonization.
    [Show full text]
  • War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 0521661579 - War Land on the Eastern Front: Culture, National Identity, and German Occupation in World War I Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius Index More information Index agriculture, 61, 65–71, 72 Banse, Ewald, 253 estates, 66, 69 Barbarossa, Operation, 266 exhibitions, 69, 162 Bartov, Omer, 5, 267 experiments, 96 Basanavicˇius, Jonas, 200 German plans for, 68–69, 199 Baumann, Hans, 263 problems, 68–69 Bavaria, 35 soil reports, 94 Bebel, August, 24 surveys, 94 Belarus and Belarusians, 31, 62, 132, 192 Allies, assistance to Baltic republics, 229, art, 139 231–32, 242 German views of, 120–21 Alsace-Lorraine, 35, 95 language, 118 Alsatian soldiers, 187–89, 213, 218 newspaper for, 123 Angarietis, Zigmas, 228 schools and, 125 anti-Semitism, 58, 61, 120, 132, 163 Soviet Lit-Bel, 229 Nazi, 256, 265, 267, 268, 270 Belgium, 56, 95, 100, 165 archaeology, 37–38 Louvain, 129 Armenians, 259 Below, von, 17 Armistice, 229–30 Bermondt, see Avalov-Bermondt August Wilhelm of Prussia, Prince, 58 Bertkau, Friedrich, 115 Auschwitz, 241 Bethmann Hollweg, Theobald von, 23, Austria, 16, 204, 257 164, 170, 196–97 autarchy, 64–65 Bialowies forest, 20, 27, 72, 199 Auxiliary Service Law, 55 Bialystok-Grodno, 21 Avalov-Bermondt, Pavel, 232, 242 administration of, 55, 58, 61–62, 198 riots, 69 Baden, Max von, 214 schools, 124 Balodis, Janis, 231 Bingen, 196 Balodis Brigade, 230 BischoV, Josef, 231, 232 Baltic countries, see Estonia; Latvia; Bismarck, Otto von, 23 Lithuania blockade, British naval, 64, 72, 163, 176, Baltic Germans, 24, 33, 165, 208
    [Show full text]
  • Eberhard Demm the German Influence on the Process of Nation Building in North-Eastern Europe 1914– 1919 Between 1914/15 and 19
    Eberhard Demm The German Influence on the Process of Nation Building in North-Eastern Europe 1914– 1919 Between 1914/15 and 1918, there was no homogeneous German politics, but two different options instead, both represented by different interest groups. 1) Annexing Russian territories populated by foreign peoples and repopulating them with Germans: This objective was claimed by the army, the conservative parties, the “Alldeutsche Bewegung” (pan-German movement) and some parts of the national liberals, later the “Vaterlandspartei” (fatherland’s party) as well as by representatives of the heavy industries taking a great interest in an immediate resource exploitation. It has been prepared by the military administration Ober-Ost already during the war. 2) Central Europe: This more subtle conception offered the foreign peoples of Russia a status as German satellite states. It soak to conciliate both the imperial interests of Germany as well as the ambition of the German economy for greater areas on the one hand and the foreign peoples’ desire for self-determination on the other. The idea of Central Europe was propagated by Friedrich Naumann and others as being a new form of peoples’ co-existence: weaker states were supposed to lean on the German Reich and to seek close cooperation with it without being impeded in their internal autonomy and self-development. This conception was asserted by government circles, the “Fortschrittliche Volkspartei” (progressive popular party), members of the MSPD (Mehrheits-Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Majoritarian Social-Democratic Party of Germany) and the industries having the will to deliver finished products in exchange for raw materials according to classical colonial model.
    [Show full text]
  • The German Impact
    The Emergence of New States in Eastern Europe after World War I: The German Impact The Emergence of New States in Eastern Europe after World War I: The German Impact Klaus Ziemer Department of Political Science University of Trier Universitätsring 15 D-54296 Trier, Germany Email: [email protected] Abstract: After World War I, many borders in Europe were redrawn, especially in the northeast and southeast of Germany. Almost all political forces in Germany strived to restore the prewar German borders, especially towards Poland. Even Poland’s very existence was denied by many German political forces. The Baltic States were less important for Germany in this respect. Here the relationship with the Baltic Germans and trade relations prevailed. The independence of these states was in the eyes of German elite subordinated to the relations with Russia. The article presents this pattern of German policy until the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922. Keywords: East Central Europe, “German impact”, German policy in Latvia, German-Polish borders, Treaty of Rapallo, World War I 1. Introduction At the end of World War I, three multinational empires collapsed: the tsarist, then Bolshevist Russia, the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Austria- Hungary. The political map of the Eastern part of Europe was redrawn, from the north to the south. Germany’s existence was not called into question, but it had to suffer serious territorial losses in the west (Alsace, Lorraine, Eupen- Malmédy), the north (North Schleswig) and especially in the east (territories ceded to Poland and a small strip to Czechoslovakia). Moreover, after the disintegration of the Habsburg Empire, German Austrians wanted to join the Reich, which reserved a representation for them in the Reichstag, and TalTechdoi: 10.2478/bjes-2021-0007 Journal of European Studies TalTech Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2674-4619), Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • CIUS Dornik PB.Indd
    THE EMERGENCE SELF-DETERMINATION, OCCUPATION, AND WAR IN UKRAINE, 1917-1922 AND WAR OCCUPATION, SELF-DETERMINATION, THE EMERGENCE OF UKRAINE SELF-DETERMINATION, OCCUPATION, AND WAR IN UKRAINE, 1917-1922 The Emergence of Ukraine: Self-Determination, Occupation, and War in Ukraine, 1917–1922, is a collection of articles by several prominent historians from Austria, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, and Russia who undertook a detailed study of the formation of the independent Ukrainian state in 1918 and, in particular, of the occupation of Ukraine by the Central Powers in the fi nal year of the First World War. A slightly condensed version of the German- language Die Ukraine zwischen Selbstbestimmung und Fremdherrschaft 1917– 1922 (Graz, 2011), this book provides, on the one hand, a systematic outline of events in Ukraine during one of the most complex periods of twentieth- century European history, when the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires collapsed at the end of the Great War and new independent nation-states OF emerged in Central and Eastern Europe. On the other hand, several chapters of this book provide detailed studies of specifi c aspects of the occupation of Ukraine by German and Austro-Hungarian troops following the Treaty of UKRAINE Brest-Litovsk, signed on 9 February 1918 between the Central Powers and the Ukrainian People’s Republic. For the fi rst time, these chapters o er English- speaking readers a wealth of hitherto unknown historical information based on thorough research and evaluation of documents from military archives in Vienna,
    [Show full text]
  • War and Terror in Historical and Contemporary Perspective
    Harry & Helen Gray Humanities Program Series Volume 14 WAR AND TERROR IN HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE Edited by Michael Geyer University of Chicago American Institute for Contemporary German Studies The Johns Hopkins University Harry & Helen Gray Humanities Program Series Volume 14 WAR AND TERROR IN HISTORICAL AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Edited by Michael Geyer University of Chicago The American Institute for Contemporary German Studies (AICGS) is a center for nonpartisan, advanced research, study and discourse relating to the Federal Republic of Germany, its politics, economy, culture and society. Founded in 1983, AICGS has been a premier source of research and analysis for the policymaking and policy-advising communities in the public and private sectors. Drawing on an international network of scholars and specialists, the Institute has consistently generated in-depth, nonpartisan assessments of Germany’s policy choices and developments and their impact on the transatlantic dialogue. Affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University, AICGS provides a comprehensive program of public fora, policy studies, research reports, and study groups designed to enrich the political, corporate and scholarly constituencies it serves. Executive Director: Jackson Janes Board of Trustees, Cochair: Fred H. Langhammer Board of Trustees, Cochair: Dr. Eugene A. Sekulow The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. ©2003 by the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies ISBN 0-941441-75-X This Humanities Program Volume is made possible by the Harry & Helen Gray Humanities Program. Additional copies are available for $5.00 to cover postage and handling from the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies, Suite 420, 1400 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]